Talk:Gliese 581g/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rontombontom (talk · contribs) 09:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started to write up a detailed section-by-section, criteria-by-criteria review of the article, but then I abandoned it. The reason is, I see some major issues relating to criterion 1 ("well written"), 3 ("Broad in its coverage") and 4 ("neutral") which run through the entire article with too many instances to list, so I will describe in general below, before listing some lesser, specific issues. (So far I only see minor or no issues related to the other three criteria.) I won't fail the article outright but ask for a second opinion from a more experienced reviewer.

My first major criticism (connected to both criterion 1 and 3) is that the article reads more like a news article than an encyclopaedia article, for multiple reasons. First, there is a pyramide structure: the first and second paragraphs are a shorter and longer summary of the same subjects, instead of being a single concise summary of the article. Second, the article uses a lot of verbatim quotes, including ones where an author uses metaphors and flowery language, which makes the article less readable to me, and in some instances non-neutral. For the most part, these quotes would be better paraphrased in a concise way (see WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE).

My second major criticism relates to the treating of the controversy about the discovery. Although the article does a good job of representing both the views of those who claim discovery of the planet and those who dispute it, there is no consistency in the language of the article: it shifts back and forth between describing opinions of the opposed teams in neutral language and describing the claimed features of the alleged planet as fact.

Here are some lesser issues:

In the Infobox, the source for the distance only gives the parallax, and it doesn't match the parsec distance given.
In the Infobox, the orbital period and the orbital elements aren't matching data. The source for the orbital period is newer, so I suggest using it for the orbital elements, too.
The article contains no source for the shortened name "Zarmina" (as used in the Infobox, the lead section and the Discovery section). The Steven 2010 source in the Infobox only contains "Zarmina's World".
In the intro, a better source for the first mention of the dispute would be Howell 2016, because unlike the source used, it details the controversy.
The wording of first sentence of the Discovery section is extra unfortunate, beyond my above second general criticism. It should be made clear that the subject of the dispute is the interpretation of observed data, whereas the sentence could be mis-read as if the dispute concerns the genuineness of the observations themselves (that is, one could read the first sentence as if the team claiming discovery is accused of making up observation data).
In the Implications section, I think rhetoric about a second Age of Discovery has no place in an encyclopaedia, even when paraphrased. I think the only point worth retaining in the whole section is the estimate for eta-Earth.
Notes: the part "For full data see: data description." should be dropped: no external linking (WP:EL) and it's in the references anyway.
References: Given the controversy, it would be advisable to complete all news citations with dates.

Additionally, I have just noticed that the article was nominated before and failed a month prior to the current nomination. The issue then was the sourcing for the radius data in the Infobox. I concur with the past reviewer that this data should only be given if it (or another data that can be used directly to derive a radius data) features in a source. Unfortunately, I can only access the abstract of the source given in the present version of the article (Bonfils 2005), so I must ask for a quote if it contains the radius. Otherwise, leave the field empty (as done for example by the site exoplanet.eu, here).

That's my review so far. Rontombontom (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the radius issue, note that the lead image is all about displaying various possible radii. In my opinion, that image should be consistent with the sources. If the sources say nothing about radius then the image should not be in the article at all. This was my main reason for failing on the first review. SpinningSpark 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I skipped over that image. It seems the article as it is now has several serious issues.

A week has now passed. The editor who nominated the article seems inactive since October last year. If no one else responds to the review/makes edits in his stead, I'll fail the article in 12 hours. Rontombontom (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]